BC Teachers have voted 87% to escalate the strike...

[Feanor]

The flip side of the public sector as waste argument is the notion, that the private sector is necessarily highly efficient. The myth is that competition & the free market is highly effective at rewarding good decisions & efficiency, and punishing the opposite. This isn't true, especially in the short & medium term.

Businesses large & small make bad decisions all the time. And money is routinely wasted in a multitude ways. However for the most part companies survive provided their balance sheets are reasonably sound.

The '50 and early '60 were prime time for corporate waste. The economy was buoyant and companies could make good profits despite high wages & benefits for employees. Of course unionized employees had the advantage but there was trickle to non-unionized workers too. A prime example was the North American auto industry where owners and management figured it was more profitable to pay the workers than risk production disruption and forego profits that would result from lost sales.

But global competition began to take hold and company decided they would share less with workers. This is microeconomics at work and it make perfect sense to the individual company. What is missed by companies -- and more importantly, by governments -- is the macroeconomic perspective -- if workers have lower incomes they have less money to spend on the products of companies.

[bobsticks]

No Cost of living increase is a pay-cut. A pay cut makes the economy worse. A cost of living increase is basically "not a pay cut."

Folks - this is first year logic.

I generally appreciate anyone's attempt at being snide but your logic is operating in a vacuum.

You're seemingly arguing that "X" amount of dollars in the hands of the 65,000 teachers of British Columbia will be spent better than that same "X" value of dollars in the hands of BC's 4.7 million population---when, in fact, it's most likely that the same "X" dollars would have been invested in consumer goods and services, albeit different ones.

You're going to have a difficult time getting anyone above Grade 4 in either of our countries to believe that 1 dollar in the hands of an individual has a greater value (potential purchasing power value) than 1 dollar in the hands of a different individual.

Your argument was, and should remain, that teachers provide an invaluable service and face ever increasingly difficult obstacles and a pay increase is based on merit. You can't play economic shell games and expect the taxpayer to come off the paper

[GMichael]

Republicans have increased the deficit in the United States for decades far far outstripping what the Democrats (the so called spenders) have done - this is FACT. ."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._1790-2009.png

[bobsticks]

The flip side of the public sector as waste argument is the notion, that the private sector is necessarily highly efficient. The myth is that competition & the free market is highly effective at rewarding good decisions & efficiency, and punishing the opposite. This isn't true, especially in the short & medium term...

This is true. Poor decision making and ineffective performance is far too common within the private sector. The difference is that there are consequences.

In the public sector, poor decision making and performance, failure to adhere to budgets and behavior in disaccordance with one's departmental mission statement are usually rewarded with promotion.

In the private sector, poor performance such as decision making that results in the disasterous, y'know, calamitous financial collapse of multiple areas of the market result in an immediate invitation to join the Obama Administration.

[RGA]

The debt over the last while

[GMichael]

The debt over the last while

Government Spending Chart: United States 1900-2016 - Federal State Local Data

[RGA]

I generally appreciate anyone's attempt at being snide but your logic is operating in a vacuum.

You're seemingly arguing that "X" amount of dollars in the hands of the 65,000 teachers of British Columbia will be spent better than that same "X" value of dollars in the hands of BC's 4.7 million population---when, in fact, it's most likely that the same "X" dollars would have been invested in consumer goods and services, albeit different ones.

You're going to have a difficult time getting anyone above Grade 4 in either of our countries to believe that 1 dollar in the hands of an individual has a greater value (potential purchasing power value) than 1 dollar in the hands of a different individual.

Your argument was, and should remain, that teachers provide an invaluable service and face ever increasingly difficult obstacles and a pay increase is based on merit. You can't play economic shell games and expect the taxpayer to come off the paper

No what I am saying is the system used to work because it was a closed system - with a global market things fall apart because employees in Canada in the private sector have to compete with the wages employees make in cost to the bottom countries like China.

It's not an either or situation (or it shouldn't be). We all get that public servants are paid by tax dollars. Hopefully we all get that tax dollars being spent on services make sense - Essential services are supposedly services that the public deems as absolute critical to the survival of society. BC Liberals call Education an Essential service (I'm a teacher and I disagree with that notion since no one is dying if you can't go to school) but anyway.

If you take a really simple example 10 people make $50,000 each. Each of them pays $5000 in tax. That tax for sake of argument goes to pay for one teacher - $42,000 and the remaining $8k goes to various benefits package. That teacher pays $5k in tax as well.

Now everyone was all fine and happy enough to go along with that - even the folks who don't have kids and don't really want to be paying tax for someone else's brat. They can sort of understand that have good kids means less of a chance they'll key his Porsche or mug him.

But corporations and it always comes down to them, are purely and only interested in the bottom line. Why pay someone a $50k salary when I can get the same job done for $5k. Back in the 60s you needed a staff of 50. Computers came in and now you need a staff of 5. A one time outlay and maintenance and you can get rid of 45 people. I worked for the steel foundry - they had locations around the globe - but when they bought Oracle I and most others became expendable. They could now do the world's accounting in one office.

It's not all the companies fault - they're bulldozer business basically had one major competitor - Caterpillar. They were far bigger than ESCO but ESCO had the rep for better quality which leads to less downtime which is important. But the Chinese came in offering he same things for half the price - you now have to cut cut cut.

My concern is the snowball that this is creating. So now private sector employees are not getting raises - or losing their jobs because the top 1% have decided that a billion a year isn't enough they want Ten billion a year. The best way to get that is to get rid of the most expensive associated cost of making product - LABOR. Labor is an enormous cost in civilized countries because it's not the wage - it's all the benefits associated with such employees. Opening shop in China dramatically reduces all costs but especially labor.

All those jobs begin to disappear so what is left are part time positions. Companies hiring more part time can avoid benefits - more-so in the States but it's in Canada now as well. Taxes go up - but people are making far less money.

So don't think I don't get it - I was the guy saying teachers should not have been asking for a pay increase and that I would not have. I sort of see some teachers saying the excuse of no money has been used now for 2 decades. I mean they're 30% behind Ontario in salary precisely because the union agreed with government and basically said we'll take the cut to help out the province.

My fear is that it's not just public sector not getting a CoL increase it's almost everyone not getting one.The drive that corporations have on cost to the bottom idealogy is that in order to do that you have to dump the employees making any real money. If you do that you have people who can't afford anything because they lost their $50k job so now they're working a hair over min wage at Starbucks.

I don't know how to fix that - but it sure isn't by lowering the buying power of large amounts of the population. 40,000 isn't as much as 4.6 million but again it snowballs. A little bit here a little bit there and it snowballs. The right wing government in BC has made the financial system in BC worse since they've been running the show. I was no fan of the corrupt sleazy clowns in the NDP either mind you which is why i voted Liberal back in the day.

I think the issue is fairly clear from the Liberal standpoint - they want to cut costs - they've chosen to cut costs to education. There is a surplus of teachers so why not push them hard?

And then they can decide how to respond - I saw the education system in BC and hey I got out. I'd thank God if there was one for that small mercy.

It's really the teacher's business now how to proceed. Personally, if I could not be here teaching in HK and I was still in Canada I would be changing careers "again." I agree with the folks who say "don't like it then leave"

I really wanted the teachers to choose an "en masse" resignation day. On May 1st all teachers in BC will tender their resignation. And all teachers in all other provinces support by not moving into the vacancies.

I just want to see what would happen - call me curious with these mental exercises.

Then all the teachers should open private schools - class sizes of 15 with two teachers per class (the way it ought to be) and no special needs allowed - no thugs or violent offenders allowed). Both teachers make a salary of $100,000 full benefits. Then only the parents with money can send their kids to the schools.

But hey why not do that? Personally I like that system better - it's far more profitable to gear your service to the rich. Doctors do it in the States - no money you don't get the best doctor or service. Can't pay - then get lost.

Universities operate that way - you want to learn some **** then you pay. Indeed, I like the idea - why the hell should I, RGA, pay tax because some putz I don't know pumped out some special needs baby because she was on crack at the time.

Why am I paying for other people forgetting to put on a condom? Then I have to pay tax for some teacher? Puhleeze.

I'm only saying this semi-sarcastically because I am confident in my teaching and would be quite happy to fight for rich clients in a complete pay per educate system. Less teachers working but much higher pay.

Right now private schools pay teachers less than public school teachers but that is only because public school is competition - remove the competition and you teach to the rich. 1 in 11 British Columbians has a net worth of a million dollars or more. So they can afford it.

The great thing is that then no tax dollars need to be spent on education at all. Parent pay the whole shot - the building, teachers books, copyrights.

Perfect.

And really we only want the poor to be working as janitors anyway right. They get in the way of the rich kids and frankly make my job as a teacher a nightmare. Give me the rich kids any day - I had the rich kids in Wenzhou - really nice not at all snotty and it was wonderful - they were raised well - work hard and learn and the ones who were weak at least made the attempt. Canadian kids with their self entitlements and "rights" and emotional status taking precedence over academics - bah - raising a bunch of sniveler babies.

I can make $50 - $75 Cad an hour tutoring here in Hong Kong on top of my job. Cater to the rich.

The poor can have baby-sitters or we'll fill a bunch of rooms with video games to let them kill time. For a good number of them it's not like they're going anywhere anyway so why waste time slowing it all down for the blunt instruments.

[GMichael]

From here: How Much Does A Teacher Really Make? | Points and Figures

It is very difficult to compare a teaching salary to a private sector employee for a number of reasons. Teachers have virtually no risk of getting laid off. If they perform poorly or spectacularly, they receive the same pay. They don’t work nearly as many hours as private sector employees, nor as many days. They are guaranteed a defined benefit pension when they retire.

[bobsticks]

I don't know how to fix that - but it sure isn't by lowering the buying power of large amounts of the population. 40,000 isn't as much as 4.6 million but again it snowballs.

The point is that for the 40,000 to have an increase in buying power the rest of the population have to have a decrease of buying power, ultimately yielding a zero net gain.

No what I am saying is the system used to work because it was a closed system - with a global market things fall apart because employees in Canada in the private sector have to compete with the wages employees make in cost to the bottom countries like China...

With the exception of the point raised at the top of this post I agree with everything you typed in post #107. The problem is that it's an argument for the implementation of tariffs and a reduction of corporate taxes, not an argument supporting COL raises for teachers (which is what you were implying in post #99).

[Feanor]

...
In the public sector, poor decision making and performance, failure to adhere to budgets and behavior in disaccordance with one's departmental mission statement are usually rewarded with promotion. ...

Several examples would make your case stronger. Yeah, it happens but it isn't an inevitable result of public sector administration.

...
In the private sector, poor performance such as decision making that results in the disasterous, y'know, calamitous financial collapse of multiple areas of the market result in an immediate invitation to join the Obama Administration.

Again, several examples would be more persuasive than bald assertion.

My original suggestion was that poor decisions in the private sector do not inevitably result in immediate or even long term calamity. The fact is that corporations can limp along for decades with suboptimal management and might only be called to account when external pressures, such as global competition come into play. A distinguishing factor of private businesses is that most often they aren't subject to the intense political scrutiny as government departments.

[Feanor]

The debt over the last while

Why what deeya know. It's Republican administrations that have most increase the debt.

Two things may be said:

• It might have been more a good thing than a bad thing. In the '80s the US (and linked economies) were saved from recession by Reagan's profligate spending mainly on defence. Contrary to the common rhetoric, it wasn't Reagan tax cuts and deregulation that saved the economy. Likewise it's scary to contemplate how much sooner and harder recession might have it without the George W's spending wasted on foreign wars. Thank you, John Maynard Keynes.
• The Republican Party (and the Conservative Party in Canada) have never been about fiscal responsibility in any valid sense. They are about low taxes especially for corporations and the rich -- and if they have to borrow to lower taxes, the record shows that they will do it big time. Joe Sixpack's perception of Republicans as the more fiscally responsible is grossly out of touch with reality.

[bobsticks]

Several examples would make your case stronger. Yeah, it happens but it isn't an inevitable result of public sector administration.


Again, several examples would be more persuasive than bald assertion.

My original suggestion was that poor decisions in the private sector do not inevitably result in immediate or even long term calamity. The fact is that corporations can limp along for decades with suboptimal management and might only be called to account when external pressures, such as global competition come into play. A distinguishing factor of private businesses is that most often they aren't subject to the intense political scrutiny as government departments.

Evidently you missed what I thought was rather biting sarcasm in that post.

[Feanor]

Evidently you missed what I thought was rather biting sarcasm in that post.

I guess that's so.

[bobsticks]

Why what deeya know. It's Republican administrations that have most increase the debt.

Two things may be said:

• It might have been more a good thing than a bad thing. In the '80s the US (and linked economies) were saved from recession by Reagan's profligate spending mainly on defence. Contrary to the common rhetoric, it wasn't Reagan tax cuts and deregulation that saved the economy. Likewise it's scary to contemplate how much sooner and harder recession might have it without the George W's spending wasted on foreign wars. Thank you, John Maynard Keynes.

It could be argued that Keynes theories were never truly adopted and the post-Keynesian "monetarism" is an outcome of assumption.

• The Republican Party (and the Conservative Party in Canada) have never been about fiscal responsibility in any valid sense. They are about low taxes especially for corporations and the rich -- and if they have to borrow to lower taxes, the record shows that they will do it big time. Joe Sixpack's perception of Republicans as the more fiscally responsible is grossly out of touch with reality.

Let's not forget the American electorate's vexing habit of voting in an Executive of one party and a Congress of the other. Neither is blameless and to indicate that one is more culpable than the other is largely fallacious.

[RGA]

From here: How Much Does A Teacher Really Make? | Points and Figures

It is very difficult to compare a teaching salary to a private sector employee for a number of reasons. Teachers have virtually no risk of getting laid off. If they perform poorly or spectacularly, they receive the same pay. They don’t work nearly as many hours as private sector employees, nor as many days. They are guaranteed a defined benefit pension when they retire.

Sorry but I stopped reading after this:

"teachers work around 176 days, 300 minutes, or 5 hours, per day.

It's not a punch clock job where you sign in right at 9am and that's when you start your duties and get off for 1 hour of lunch and then work from 1pm to 3pm and walk out the door.

And teachers in BC can expect to be laid off every year for at least the first 7 years of teaching (and it's closer to 10 years). This happens because there is a new budget and new student enrollment each year which means each year those with the least seniority get dumped. It is likely you will get re-hired but not likely you will be re-hired to teach the same subjects or at the same school.

Teachers in BC pay for their own pensions by the way - so while it is a good pension it's good because teachers pay 10% of their salary to make it a good pension - not because tax payers are funding it to the hilt.

The estimate average hours per week teachers put in is closer to 60. We do not have secretaries that prepare are lessons and mark and write report cards do extra curriculars, take kids on weekend trips which teachers usually prop up with their own money to make it happen.

My roommate is a P.E. teacher he paid the $1750 for the team's Rugby jerseys because otherwise they wouldn't be able to have a team because people in the community are too poor and the school sure as hell can't afford it. No else knows he did that - the principal asked him how he got the jerseys and his answer was simply "it's been taken care of."

I don't see why John the Lawyer with 3 kids ($250k a year) and Martha the Accountant ($150k) with three kids can't run the school soccer team at 6pm weeknights. Oh wait their job for the day is over.

Try being an English Drama teacher in a high school running a school play/musical sometime. Come back to me with the 5 hours a day comment. 3 classes English 11/12 and a school play and teaching drama. 30 kids per class each writing 3-5 page essays. And presumably the kids know what to do before they walk in because in that 5 hours who wrote the lesson for the teacher? They can both write the lesson plan and teach and mark at the same time.


Now I will also take issue with another part of what he was on about. It is true that some subjects and some grade levels are more time consuming for teachers - he seems to want to track down everyone's movements. But this is true in any field anywhere - some people are far more dedicated than others and put in more time - on the flip side there are more efficient workers who get their job done quickly and it is equally a good job - whether they leave at 6pm or 5pm that is not really a way to tell who is doing a better job.

Language subjects typically have a lot more marking involved. Though math can have marking typically tests can be multiple choice and a scantron used - marking such tests is a 5 minute affair. Prep however is more involved because kids tend to struggle with math so you need to come up with multiple approaches and explanations for the same lesson. Generally that isn't required for English. However any reading writing intensive course does tend to require a lot of lecture/and repetition. It takes more work to hunt down and find interesting materials because if kids aren't interested they tune out.

P.E. always seems like the cake-walk job but it has pitfalls - it's generally an elective which the thugs take - so you get more classroom management issues to deal with. Marking is much easier because it's performance and effort based - usually more effort than performance. But it also exposes teachers to more brawling and fights they have to deal with and sexual harassment issues in coed classes. There are more reports to fill out if Suzy banged her finger because if she goes home and drops dead the school will be sued and the teacher canned. Or those forms parents sign for field trips that state things like "the school will not be held responsible for XYZ that happens to your child" - those actually have no teeth - the school is responsible and that form is meant to make people think they have no rights to sue. Anything happens on a field trip is the teacher's fault. Which kind of is the reason there are so few field trips anymore. Further P.E teachers have less marking so they run all the extr-curricular activities - sports after school and at lunch times (which they give up to do it).

Science teachers - well they're in demand so in a sense you are paying for their expertise. Biology and Chem is a high prep subject in terms of the labs, safety, clean-up. Marking is easier than English - fact based one line answers typically are. Then it's going through what the individual keeps doing incorrectly as well as what the class as a whole is struggling with. Going through the class to see which answers everyone is getting wrong and readdressing that in the next class. The attempt is to have it marked ASAP so not too much time lags to the point where everyone has moved on.

Then factor in the IEP meetings - that is done off school hours - meet the parents - have the psychologist/counselor in hour goes by forms filled out. Teachers have to create systems to help when the kid is going to fly off the rails.

Parent teacher nights - yeah the parent comes in once for 15 minutes but usually the teacher has to be there from 4-8 or longer for the whole week to accommodate working parents.

Then report cards - Elementary is far more difficult because words have to stroke the parents ego and make Johnny the serial killer look like johnny the boy with an overactive personality and impressive imagination who must try not to bite people.

The wage in BC is around $42,000 and after 11-12 years (full time positions) reaches $78,000.

Personally I am fine with that and most teachers have no issue with that. That salary is over 10 months not 12. That's a bit moot though since not everyone can get a job for 2 months - or at least not one that pays anything. My friend fishes during the two months and makes more than his teaching salary in those two months. But not everyone knows how to fish or can handle the sea. One teacher does roofing and he also makes more money in the summer than he does teaching.

Teachers can also tutor - I tutored and made about $30 an hour. I can make $50 - $75 in Hong Kong.

Frankly though this is all stuff people accept when they go into the teaching profession - it's a profession not a job. It's not so much that anyone minds doing this - it's when some putz says it's a 5 hour job when it's more like a 10 hour job that is annoying. I would rather put ten hours in at something I like than 8 hours in at something I hate - which is why I left accounting. But the "it's only five hours" and "you get a great pension" and "you get summer's off" is laughable.

[Feanor]

It could be argued that Keynes theories were never truly adopted and the post-Keynesian "monetarism" is an outcome of assumption.
...

Indeed, Keynes theories were never fully adopted or more precisely never properly adopted.

As you know, Keynes himself firmly believed in the capitalist system but he also believed that it needed a little help from time to time, especially when the economy was working below capacity. He demonstrated that at such times governments ought to boost demand using deficit spending. Unfortunately governments in various countries misinterpreted (or misrepresented) his principles to mean that deficit spending could be employed continuously to cause the economy to grow and tax revenues to automatically keep up. This doesn't work but then it isn't what Keynes recommended.

The "monetarism" of the Milton Friedman and the Chicago School was always simplistic and has never worked to prevent recession. It works best, or maybe only, to control inflation in a moderately buoyant economy. Low interest rates under Greenspan an subsequently Bernanke created a financial bubble that presaged the '08 financial crash; it also create unsustainable consumer borrowing that failed to prevent the post-bubble recession. Since then low interested rates have done very little to foster the recovery. Why? because making money available cheap doesn't help much if people are unwilling to spend; (you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink).

[RGA]

My problem with economics is that there seems to be very little agreement with what actually works to fix problems when they arise. History is what should be looked at. Did it work the last 3 times?

"The point is that for the 40,000 to have an increase in buying power the rest of the population have to have a decrease of buying power, ultimately yielding a zero net gain."

Forgive me but I took economics in 1992 and I'm incredibly rusty but as I recall there is X amount of pie and it gets divided up. So an awful lot of poverty has to exist in the world to make a millionaire a millionaire.

I have no problem with capitalism - ultra socialist countries have issues (Canada isn't one of them) because it demotivates people to work. I remember my Uncle working at a plant in Britain and he refused to work overtime - why? Because the tax rate was idiotic - something like every dollar you made in overtime was taxed at 90% - so why bother going in.

If the government has a cradle to grave system for you then why bother to go to work? Indeed, my last girlfriend was nearly deaf and because of this disability the government gives her $900 a month in which to live - it's the same if you have M.S. Good luck living on $900 a month.

Anyway, the dumb thing about this system is that you can sort of understand the money - it is a lot tougher to get a job if you're deaf because most jobs require hearing. And hearing aids are expensive yadda yadda.

But she wanted to work - the silly thing though is if she works and gets $500 they take $500 AWAY from her monthly allowance - So she would only get $400. So she can actually go to work and contribute to society and make $900 or she can sit home and make $900.

Where is the incentive? basically getting punished to work.

When I was laid off my job I got the full rate of employment insurance. I was called by a temp agency to do accounting work for $12 an hour. I did the calculation and looked at the after tax dollars and my travel expenses and said - no I think I'll just collect EI since the $100 more a month would not be worth it. I told the temp agency that - big mouth that I have - they called back and offered $15 an hour. Funny how these companies have the money and cry poverty but they do in fact have more than they claim.


Take the teacher union - I have serious problems with unions in that once you're safely in and past the low seniority layoffs then you're set for life. You have to do something completely illegal to get fired. That irks me because there are much better teachers out there working at Starbucks while some lazy arse is coasting through his profession. Or he's burned out and has given up. The burn-outs unfortunately are 50+ and have no way to get any other job and it's a high tier stress job so it would be nice for government to have systems in place to get these people out and into other careers.

That to me is the point of government or social safety nets. They serve as a TEMPORARY safety net not cradle to grave security.

Employment insurance - well you pay into it while you work so when you need it it's there great - you can only get it if you work X number of hours that meets a threshold. I'm for all of that.

I would like to see a flat income tax. This tax rises on income but in HK it seems so much better than the west - and easier to follow.

I pay 15% tax - bill comes in at the end of the year - you made X amount - you must pay this amount Y. There is no need to hire outfits or buy computer programs at Best Buy to figure out deductions or if you get money back - you don't get money back because it's not taken from your paycheck - you simply get a bill. Sure there are some deductions apparently - I have not seen the forms yet but it's all apparently much easier.

There is no sales tax on anything.

If you are poor you don't pay the tax and housing is subsidized for the poor. This is partly because the wages for the poor stink and their hours are very long.

The pension scheme is easy as well - you pay 5% of your paycheque - the government pays 5%. When you turn 65 you get the lump sum amount - you live on that amount for the rest of your life - so be careful.

Still people complain that the poor get housing subsidies - but the housing is much worse and at least the people do work - they get paid badly which is why they're poor - they're not poor because they're lazy. The fact is some people simply are not all that smart and simply can't do jobs that pay well. But at least the effort is there. I can't see the right wing hard ass Republican types having a problem with that - what I suspect they have a problem with is the do nothing moochers. Umm so do I.

And I suspect they don't like union protectionism - neither do I. As a Substitute teacher it bothered me because I know I could do a better job and would put more effort in than many of the teachers I saw. Frankly I want to see more competition in such a field - those teachers probably could be a lot better too but without any fear of losing their top of the scale pay or any fear of losing their job human nature sets in and they rest on their laurels. A little more checking up and holding them accountable I am for. Although the policies in the US are just dumb - looking at test scores - jeez. But there are ways to do it that make sense.

But then I am the teacher that would like to see all schools in Canada go to uniforms and I want a video camera in every classroom. I want to see my teaching and I want to see what I am doing well and not doing well. It protects students from the pedophiles (who won't go into teaching in the first place if they know they can't get away with anything) - and it also protects teachers from false accusations by students who are trying to blackmail for a pass (or just get their kicks out of it). No downside that such cameras are now dirt cheap. It also helps parents see what their kid is like when not in their view. It is a "public" school system after all so I am not sure I buy the privacy rights arguments - in any case the kids faces can be blocked out - and only certain people could be allowed access (ie not the teacher).

My concern with Bill 22 is mainly about the class size and legitimate protections. The government now will pay teachers extra for going over class limits - the teacher unions said no we don't want more money to take more students - because it isn't about the money. Strange isn't it - they want a C.O.L but not cash for kids.

Personally I want less than what a babysitter makes(now typically $10 and hour).

How about we give teachers half - $5 and hour - per kid per hour based on the 5 hour day and I'll throw in the lessons for free. Class size average say 25 to 30 kids - sounds reasonable to me.

[Feanor]

...
I have no problem with capitalism - ultra socialist countries have issues (Canada isn't one of them) because it demotivates people to work. I remember my Uncle working at a plant in Britain and he refused to work overtime - why? Because the tax rate was idiotic - something like every dollar you made in overtime was taxed at 90% - so why bother going in. ...

IMO, the aspect of "demotivation" in case of substantially socialist, or planned, economies is greatly exaggerated. The bigger problem is technical one: that state planning is an inefficient method of resource allocation versus a free market. And in particular, price determination by supply & demand, vs. "fiat" priceing, is necessary of efficient allocation.

[RGA]

Maybe something will get done if rich people (people who earn $100k a year) actually find some generosity

MDs propose tax increases for wealthiest Canadians, starting at $100,000 - Yahoo! News Canada

[bobsticks]

Re: Post #117--- you do realize that more words does not a logical argument make...

Maybe something will get done if rich people (people who earn $100k a year) actually find some generosity

MDs propose tax increases for wealthiest Canadians, starting at $100,000 - Yahoo! News Canada

I find it slightly disturbing that you consider $100k per annum "rich".

[GMichael]

Sorry but I stopped reading after this:

"teachers work around 176 days, 300 minutes, or 5 hours, per day.

It's not a punch clock job where you sign in right at 9am and that's when you start your duties and get off for 1 hour of lunch and then work from 1pm to 3pm and walk out the door.

And teachers in BC can expect to be laid off every year for at least the first 7 years of teaching (and it's closer to 10 years). This happens because there is a new budget and new student enrollment each year which means each year those with the least seniority get dumped. It is likely you will get re-hired but not likely you will be re-hired to teach the same subjects or at the same school.

Teachers in BC pay for their own pensions by the way - so while it is a good pension it's good because teachers pay 10% of their salary to make it a good pension - not because tax payers are funding it to the hilt.

The estimate average hours per week teachers put in is closer to 60. We do not have secretaries that prepare are lessons and mark and write report cards do extra curriculars, take kids on weekend trips which teachers usually prop up with their own money to make it happen.

My roommate is a P.E. teacher he paid the $1750 for the team's Rugby jerseys because otherwise they wouldn't be able to have a team because people in the community are too poor and the school sure as hell can't afford it. No else knows he did that - the principal asked him how he got the jerseys and his answer was simply "it's been taken care of."

I don't see why John the Lawyer with 3 kids ($250k a year) and Martha the Accountant ($150k) with three kids can't run the school soccer team at 6pm weeknights. Oh wait their job for the day is over.

Try being an English Drama teacher in a high school running a school play/musical sometime. Come back to me with the 5 hours a day comment. 3 classes English 11/12 and a school play and teaching drama. 30 kids per class each writing 3-5 page essays. And presumably the kids know what to do before they walk in because in that 5 hours who wrote the lesson for the teacher? They can both write the lesson plan and teach and mark at the same time.


Now I will also take issue with another part of what he was on about. It is true that some subjects and some grade levels are more time consuming for teachers - he seems to want to track down everyone's movements. But this is true in any field anywhere - some people are far more dedicated than others and put in more time - on the flip side there are more efficient workers who get their job done quickly and it is equally a good job - whether they leave at 6pm or 5pm that is not really a way to tell who is doing a better job.

Language subjects typically have a lot more marking involved. Though math can have marking typically tests can be multiple choice and a scantron used - marking such tests is a 5 minute affair. Prep however is more involved because kids tend to struggle with math so you need to come up with multiple approaches and explanations for the same lesson. Generally that isn't required for English. However any reading writing intensive course does tend to require a lot of lecture/and repetition. It takes more work to hunt down and find interesting materials because if kids aren't interested they tune out.

P.E. always seems like the cake-walk job but it has pitfalls - it's generally an elective which the thugs take - so you get more classroom management issues to deal with. Marking is much easier because it's performance and effort based - usually more effort than performance. But it also exposes teachers to more brawling and fights they have to deal with and sexual harassment issues in coed classes. There are more reports to fill out if Suzy banged her finger because if she goes home and drops dead the school will be sued and the teacher canned. Or those forms parents sign for field trips that state things like "the school will not be held responsible for XYZ that happens to your child" - those actually have no teeth - the school is responsible and that form is meant to make people think they have no rights to sue. Anything happens on a field trip is the teacher's fault. Which kind of is the reason there are so few field trips anymore. Further P.E teachers have less marking so they run all the extr-curricular activities - sports after school and at lunch times (which they give up to do it).

Science teachers - well they're in demand so in a sense you are paying for their expertise. Biology and Chem is a high prep subject in terms of the labs, safety, clean-up. Marking is easier than English - fact based one line answers typically are. Then it's going through what the individual keeps doing incorrectly as well as what the class as a whole is struggling with. Going through the class to see which answers everyone is getting wrong and readdressing that in the next class. The attempt is to have it marked ASAP so not too much time lags to the point where everyone has moved on.

Then factor in the IEP meetings - that is done off school hours - meet the parents - have the psychologist/counselor in hour goes by forms filled out. Teachers have to create systems to help when the kid is going to fly off the rails.

Parent teacher nights - yeah the parent comes in once for 15 minutes but usually the teacher has to be there from 4-8 or longer for the whole week to accommodate working parents.

Then report cards - Elementary is far more difficult because words have to stroke the parents ego and make Johnny the serial killer look like johnny the boy with an overactive personality and impressive imagination who must try not to bite people.

The wage in BC is around $42,000 and after 11-12 years (full time positions) reaches $78,000.

Personally I am fine with that and most teachers have no issue with that. That salary is over 10 months not 12. That's a bit moot though since not everyone can get a job for 2 months - or at least not one that pays anything. My friend fishes during the two months and makes more than his teaching salary in those two months. But not everyone knows how to fish or can handle the sea. One teacher does roofing and he also makes more money in the summer than he does teaching.

Teachers can also tutor - I tutored and made about $30 an hour. I can make $50 - $75 in Hong Kong.

Frankly though this is all stuff people accept when they go into the teaching profession - it's a profession not a job. It's not so much that anyone minds doing this - it's when some putz says it's a 5 hour job when it's more like a 10 hour job that is annoying. I would rather put ten hours in at something I like than 8 hours in at something I hate - which is why I left accounting. But the "it's only five hours" and "you get a great pension" and "you get summer's off" is laughable.

Sorry. I stopped reading after I saw that you had stopped reading. Later on it goes on to say that teachers do bring home work and grade papers on breakes ect. By the way, I bring home work too after a 50 hour work week. I also work through lunch and rarely take a break.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Re: Post #117--- you do realize that more words does not a logical argument make...




I find it slightly disturbing that you consider $100k per annum "rich".

What's the problem, up here in the Ruperts Land it doesn't cost much to maintain an igloo or a dog sled team. Seal meat is gettin' a bit expensive tho. $100k is plenty (unless you are a teacher I 'spose).

[GMichael]

RGA, you keep using that $40k figure. That's a lowball number that does not reflect the average salary.

[RGA]

Re: Post #117--- you do realize that more words does not a logical argument make...

I find it slightly disturbing that you consider $100k per annum "rich".

I find it quite disturbing that you do not. Since 99% of the population (in wealthy countries) make less than $100,000 a year - (indeed most make less than $50,000, I'd say the 1% that's left is rich.

If $100k is middle class - then $50k is poor. What is $20k (the Poverty line) the really poor?

$40-$80k is lower to upper middle class IMO. Above that is rich (entry level rich but rich) The fact that the idiots spend more than they earn and get themselves in massive debt by buying $800,000 homes and 2 cars and Audio Note level 5 gear may be a reason they don't feel very rich - but I can tell you if I made $100,000K a year I would be living the life of Reilly. Cause - I would not buy stuff way beyond my means.

I agonize over spending $150 on a watch that may last 20 years. The $100k earners drop 8 large on a Rolex and then say that $100k isn't rich. Puhleeze.

A distinction needs to be made about individual and family income here as well. I am talking about single person income.

Canada Income range % of families

Quintile 1 up to $40,000 21.1% Poor & near poor
Quintile 2 $40 – $60,000 17.9% Lower-middle
Quintile 3 $60 – $85,000 20.4% Middle income
Quintile 4 $85 – $125,000 21.4% Upper-middle income
Quintile 5 over $125,000 19.2% High income or well-off

I would call the lower middle dirt poor - a family would seriously struggle at $40-$60k if they had children and they would have no ability to save. At the $60k end they might be OK but at $40k it would be ridiculous.

[RGA]

RGA, you keep using that $40k figure. That's a lowball number that does not reflect the average salary.

The average salary doesn't reflect substitute teachers.

An average salary is only relevant in a career you start at age say 25-30 to retirement. The average wage in BC is around $60k out of those people who have full time teaching position. It doesn't factor in a teacher in substitute teacher in Victoria (who may have more qualifications/degree than full time boomer teachers) who earn an average of $11,000 per year nor that it takes an average of 13-17 years to get a full time position in that district.

In any career what you need to look at is HOW LONG they earn what they earn not the fact that from age 55-60 they make $78,000. And average wages across the country can't be factored in since a teacher in Alberta or Ontario make 30% more money to do the exact same job (both with a lower cost of living so it's even more than 30% in terms of buying power).

An average salary calculation needs a formula something like this:

Total Salary Earned in the Profession (Divided by) number of years worked in that profession.

Answer: $_______

Subtract: All associated costs to work in the profession (University) - 5.5 years away from the work force (calculation of the provincial average for workers not requiring a university degree or $20,800 for Minimum wage based on $10 an hour 8 hours a day for the year.

Answer $_________

Back in the 80s you could walk out at 25 with your teacher certificate and you would get a job immediately and then work for 40 years. A lot of those years at the top of the pay grid. Hence why everyone back then with a decent job owns a house and a nice car can retire early and live well.

Today - it's far harder to get into the teaching program and the degree requirements are far stiffer. And the costs have risen at least 10 fold. Now you come out 25 and it's 35 by the time you get a full time job(maybe otherwise you'll be making at best minimum wage) - 10 years you were not getting a nice paying job - some exceptions - Science teachers, French teachers, Calculus/Physics and counselors but that requires a masters degree at least 2 years and you have to be working as a teacher in order to get the certification because it demands in school practice.

So now you're 35 and you finally get your first full time job $43,000. If a $100k isn't rich(ie middle class) then $43k has to be poor. Indeed, I've lived on that and it's not by any stretch good - not when 10% is immediately taken off the top for teaching pension (which may be great at 65 but doesn't help me now. Oh and the union fees for a union that can't strike and has no power whatsoever - have to pay it. Also, have to pay the annual $120 for the teaching card to keep it up to date. Last year it was $90 - what will it be next year?

If we just go by the simple average of $60k I agree it looks very fine indeed. But that isn't the same kind of average than looking at say the guys who worked in the steel foundry where I was working. They can start at 18 and earn $50k. No education required since they trained them. With salary bumps and overtime it was very easy to earn $120k per year. Over their career they would easily earn double or triple what a teacher would make.

And it's a dangerous job - but chances are you're not going to get stabbed or your car keyed.





.